Session 093-03, Eichmann Adolf

Q. And when the Jew Karl Heinz Klinger escapes to Budapest,
that is T/826, document No. 927, you contact your Foreign
Ministry and demand his extradition, because he managed to
escape from the deportation measures?

A. This document was also dealt with by an official-in-
charge. This official also notes that the person referred to
in the heading had got to know about various internal
matters on the basis of his activities on behalf of a
counter-espionage organization, which must be a German
counter-espionage organization, and also a customs-search
office, and that his planned escape abroad could be
prevented. It does not say that my Section and my official-
in-charge were the cause of this. The prime movers were
those who worked with him in counter-intelligence. In
accordance with orders, I had to write about this, nothing
more, because I had absolutely no idea that the Jew referred
to in the heading had worked with counter-intelligence and
the customs-search office. That is another clear piece of
evidence of the fact that I acted on the basis of some form
of instructions and orders, and that I was only able to
obtain such instructions and orders from my direct superior,
Mueller, and his authority as Inspector General for the
Frontiers was very wide.

Judge Halevi: I have another question about an earlier
document. Take T/496 once again. This talks about the Jew
Golub, for whom some third party in Switzerland is trying to
obtain South American nationality. And it says there that
you have learned of this in the strictest confidence. That
means that you had an intelligence network for uncovering
such cases.

Accused: First of all, the Head Office for Reich
Security, Department VI, Your Honour, had an intelligence
service, but Department IV did not.

Q. And did Department VI pass such intelligence on to you?

A. Not only Department VI, although obviously they did,
too. Such information also came from the plenipotentiaries
of the Fuehrer for various special areas, for the Party
Chancellery, from the various ministries…

Q. But what happened here in Switzerland, someone in
Switzerland was trying to get South American nationality.
How did you find out about that?

A. It is possible that the Party Chancellery in Berlin was
notified about that through the territorial group in
Switzerland of the National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP)

Q. That means that there were spies there for the Nazi
Party, spying on what went on in Switzerland?

A. That was done in all countries – in every country an
intelligence service was operated.

Q. In other words, an intelligence network, as I said?

A. I am convinced that during the War, there were various
intelligence networks in all these countries, as well. I
know of some of them.

Q. But they dealt with such matters?

A. The intelligence services dealt with all matters.

Q. With these matters as well?

A. Including these matters, as well. This is not the only
case, Your Honour, many such matters had to be dealt with.

Q. And when the Swedish Government was prepared to grant
Swedish citizenship to a few Norwegian Jews, in order to
save them, you were the person who informed the occupation
authorities that you would in no way agree, and that you
would issue instructions to send the Jews in question to
their deaths as quickly as possible regardless. Is that

A. I am sure it does not say to send them to their deaths,
I cannot imagine that. But I must admit that I did have to
write such letters, I do know that, because this was not the
only case. Such letters were common, in fact they were so
common, I must also admit, as I also said in my
interrogation, that two officials had to split the alphabet
between them, in order to deal with the individual cases
which passed through Section IVB4 as part of the official
channels, from the lower to the higher levels, or from the
higher to the lower levels, and which had to be dealt with
in the Section.

Q. And when Jews of Poland try to escape to Romania, and
the German censor intercepts a letter which refers to that,
then you are the address to which the censor passes on the
letter – T/265, document No. 1534.

Presiding Judge: What was the number of the Norwegian

Attorney General: T/593, document No. 330, the last

(To the Accused) Was that also your business?

Accused: This document is from Richter, who was in
Bucharest as Aide to the Police Attache, and later as Police
Attache himself, and it is addressed to the Chief of the
Security Police and the Security Service, for the attention
of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann.

Yes, such matters also came to my attention, as I have said,
there were hundreds or perhaps thousands of individual

Q. Because all Jewish affairs were your business, correct?

A. No, that is not correct, because otherwise other Section
Heads in the Head Office for Reich Security would not have
been involved, in their capacity of being in charge of other

Q. I shall now turn to a new chapter, and if the Court
agrees, it might be advisable to have a recess.

Presiding Judge: I always believe that the first part of a
Session should be the longer one.

Attorney General: I agree, but this chapter will take an

Presiding Judge: Very well, we shall now take a recess.


Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Hausner.

Attorney General: The order for deportations to the camps in
the East was determined both by general instructions, and
also by special instructions, which were issued from time to
time, was it not?

Accused: Subject to how the timetables etc. were applied,

Q. Let us take T/407, document No. 693* {*Erroneously
referred to as document No. 690 on page 572, Volume II} for
example. You are reporting to Paris about a transport – I
believe that this is one of the first notifications – and
you ask for a complete list to be sent to your Department.
Look at what I have underlined.

A. Yes.

Q. So from time to time, you received a list of the names
of those deported?

A. Yes, but I believe that towards the end that stopped.

Q. When was towards the end?

A. I am unable to say now, because Section IVB4 only had
the statistical documents, as the Section had to draw up a
monthly report on total figures.

Q. Perhaps you misunderstand me. My question is: Until when
did you receive your lists with the names of every Jew who
was deported?

A. I am unable to give the precise date. I cannot even give
a really accurate indication. I said that I believe that
towards the end that was not done any more.

Q. Towards the end, I assume that means towards the end of

A. That must actually have been 1943, because by 1944 I
practically was not at the Head Office for Reich Security.

Q. From March on, would you say?

A. Yes, with the exception of the few weeks before, when I
was living east of Berlin.

Q. According to the directives you issued, and I am now
referring to the directives in T/765, document No. 1282 – a
report about all transports had to be sent to your Section,
to the Inspector of Concentration Camps in Oranienburg and
to the Auschwitz concentration camp.

A. There was a whole series of directives which could be
ordered in any particular case. In accordance with these
directives, dated 20 February 1943, about the technical
implementation of the evacuation of Jews to the East
(Auschwitz concentration camp), what you have said is
correct, Mr. Attorney General.

Q. And this was so that Oranienburg, which controlled the
concentration camps, and also Auschwitz itself could make
preparations for absorption. It was for this purpose that
reports had to be made to you?

A. No, it was the other way round: first of all, the
Inspectorate of Concentration Camps indicated the
destination, and then Section IVB4 was informed of the
destination by Department Chief IV, but of course the
practical outcome was the same.

Q. And this was also how things were carried out as we have
seen in a whole series of reports, of which I shall show you
only one. For example T/447 (13), document No. 275, in which
Roethke reports on a transport in accordance with these

A. Yes. This distribution list was valid only for
Auschwitz. For the Generalgouvernement there was a different
distribution list.

Q. Yes, I know. Thus Roethke enquired of you, when he had
already fixed the time and had the transport material ready,
whether he could carry out the transport to Auschwitz, as,
for example, in T/458, document No. 254. I am at present
interested in the first page. Is that correct?

A. Yes, in substance that is correct.

Q. And your Section controlled this, as can be seen from
the other pages?

A. Yes. That is also correct.

Q. And sometimes the organizers informed you of the
departure of transports and asked you to notify Auschwitz
and the Border Police, as can be seen, for example, in
T/459, document No. 258?

A. Yes. This telegram is also in order, I must confirm that
this is how things happened.

Q. And as you will see from T/460, document No. 259, that
your Section controlled things in this way?

A. Yes. These are matters regarding timetables, matters of
notification, which I have in any case always admitted.
These are the deportations from France, ordered personally
by Himmler.

Q. In order to ascertain whether there were still
possibilities for absorption at Auschwitz, you were in touch
directly with the Commandant of Auschwitz, as you have
stated in T/1405, in that same part of your testimony which
was repeated by Sassen: “In fact I had to have permanent
contacts with concentration camps, particularly Auschwitz.”

A. As far as I know, the concentration camp commandants had
nothing to do with absorption capacity; this was determined
exclusively by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps. I
have also been able to ascertain this from studying the
files here.

Presiding Judge: That was marked T/1393.

Attorney General: I apologize.

I am not asking you about instructions, I am asking you
about facts. Were you in fact in constant contact with the
Commandant at Auschwitz, in order to ascertain the
absorption possibilities there?

Accused: No, that does not fit the facts. Neither I, nor
the Section, were in contact with any concentration camp

Attorney General: May I have T/1393 from the Court?

Judge Halevi: It is on the third page, Mr. Attorney

Attorney General [To Judge Halevi] Did you find it on the
third page?

Judge Raveh: There is a figure 6 on the third page,
paragraph 6.

Attorney General: Thank you very much.

Look, this is part of what you said, which the Court
admitted with the agreement of your Counsel as words which
you uttered, and here it says the following: “Because I had
to maintain constant contact with the absorbing
concentration camps, particularly Auschwitz, before any
major sector got under way, such as Hungary.” After all this
is what you yourself said, how can you deny it?

Accused: I am far from wanting to deny anything of this
sort, but since I myself have now read the statement of a
senior official in the Economic-Administrative Head Office
in the documents, I must now say that these documents, which
are more reliable than my faulty memory, show when I may
have made such a statement as this. This official was an SS
Standartenfuehrer called Sommer, who made a precise
statement about this, and described precisely how things
happened. I do not deny that I was in touch with Hoess, but
I was not in constant contact.

Q. No, no, I am talking about constant contact in
connection with the possibility for the absorption at

A. I must state that that is not true.

Q. That is not true, even though it comes from you?

A. Even though it comes from me, because it originated in a
faulty fashion from a faulty memory, and the documents here
correctly indicate how things were.

Q. You know perfectly well that there is no contradiction
between what Sommer writes and what you said. I would ask
you whether as far as you remember – and it seems to me that
your memory is not as faulty as all that – whether you
remember being in constant contact with the Auschwitz
Concentration Camp in order to be able to ascertain
possibilities for absorption?

A. No, I was not in constant contact with the Auschwitz
Concentration Camp in order to ascertain possibilities for
absorption. I was in contact from time to time, when
ordered, but I was not in constant contact and not on this

Presiding Judge: Mr. Hausner, we need another copy of
T/1393. Perhaps you could make a note of that. I did not
receive it at the time.

Attorney General: Yes, of course.

[To Accused] Tell me, this File 17, which you told us you
wrote in peace and quiet on the ranch – what it says here is
correct, I suppose?

Accused: To the best of my knowledge and belief, and
subject to my ability to remember, everything is correct.

Q. I will now give you your manuscript, since you will
naturally not wish to rely on the typed copy – would you
read what you have written on page 730. Starting with the
words “dort wo meine Zustaendigkeit ” (where my
responsibility). Read this out aloud to the Court. I have
marked it in ink.

Accused: “Where my responsibility” – it should read no
longer (nicht mehr) “existed, for example with regard to the
physical annihilation of part of the Jews. I necessarily
obtained a sufficient general idea of the matter to allow me
to describe how the matter occurred.”

Q. The word “nicht” (no) that you added – I understand that
you had prepared yourself for that, but the word “nicht”
just makes the entire sentence meaningless.

A. I think – when the whole page is considered, then the
sentence can be properly understood – and it is distorted if
this word “nicht” which oddly enough has not come out in the
photocopy – is not included in the reading. There are in
fact several smudges here, but the word “nicht” does not
appear, and I also noticed this when I read this copy of my
writings and I made note of it in my…

Q. And so you decided to add the word “nicht.”

A. No, it can also be seen when you read the handwritten
page, it is quite clear to everyone that there is a “nicht”
here. And even on this photocopy it can be seen that
something did appear here. If the “nicht” were not here, the
sentence would be entirely meaningless.

Presiding Judge: What is the word after “nicht”?

Accused: “Mehr” – it was “nicht mehr”(no longer), because
if there were no “nicht” there, it would read “where my
responsibility existed more.” That is something which can be
very easily ascertained in German.

Attorney General Are you therefore arguing that you wrote
that you were not empowered to do this; you therefore had a
general idea and could definitely describe how the matter
came about? You are explaining that this was because you did
not have any responsibility?

Accused: No, but where my responsibility no longer
existed, for example with regard to the physical
annihilation of part of the Jews, I necessarily had a
general idea and could therefore describe things; that is
what it means. The complete passage indicates this quite

Last-Modified: 1999/06/13